Being new to this site, I find it very engaging, and this website definitely has a unique community. That being said, I think an alternate format of debate could be fun for many to try out.

Currently, I am a collegiate debater at CU, and I compete in NPDA Parli format. I really enjoy the style, and honestly, if one takes the time to try it out and be engaged, the format is really conducive to awesome debate.

An overview of Parli: Parli debate is a less evidence-intensive debate which relies on warrant and impact analysis over unsubstantiated listings of stats. This means one doesnt need to cite every source. An honour system exists, and if someone egregiously lies about a stat, both their judge and opponent may punish such. Topics and sides will be predetermined. Parli is a free-form of debate. It has very little rules. Judges only need to vote one way or another, it is up to the debaters to warrant why the judge should vote for them. The rules of debate can even be debated in round.

Although the jargon and layout used can seem intimidating, in reality it serves a very useful function, and the learning curve is not too steep. I will explain the format in depth in a post below, which one can also use as a model in round.

The tournament I am proposing would be an 8 person tournament. Seeding will be determined by 2 prelim rounds, and the competitors will be split into 2 robins of 4. Rounds would have an 8,000 character limit. I am thinking it'd be cool to have quick rounds, which 1-3 hours given for replies, but that is open to discussion.

Prelims will be powered, so winners hit winners and losers hit losers, and the tournament will be reseeded each round. Each signup member will be randomly given a number between 1 and 8, and will be placed in the corresponding pool (shown below)

Here is a basic template

Pool A Pool B1. (A) 5. (E)2. (B) 6. (F)3. (C) 7. (G)4. (D) 8. (H)

Round i = A v BRound ii = C v DThe winner of round i faces the winner of round ii, and so on.After 2 rounds there will, of course, be two 1-1 teams. The tie will be broken via speaker points assigned by designated judges, as will be explained below.

Also, if you wish to judge but not compete, you are more than welcome to participate in that sense.

Judging:* When possible, judges will be volunteers not competing in the round. Otherwise, a competitor from the opposite bracket will be assigned* Prelim rounds will optimally have 1 judge, and elim rounds will have a panel of 3 if possible* Judges vote outside of the system provided, and may select the winner of their own accord* Judging paradigms, explaining what is likely to persuade a judge in a round, are encouraged but not required* RFDs should be thorough* Speaker points are also assigned, on a scale of 1-30, based on the performance of each in a debate. The point distance between the winner and loser will be added to a superscore for the winner. If the winner receives less points than the loser (called a low point win) and in the case of the loser, no points will be added* Ideally, this allows for judges to fairly reward good debate. Say an opponent does a horrible job, but wins one argument that ultimately is the most important in the round (EX voting aff causes nuclear war), the judge can give higher speaker points to the loser, but still vote for the winner* One doesnt need to win every argument in the round to win the debate. In rebuttals, arguments should be framed to hollow out the most important.

Constructives may freely bring up new arguments. Rebbutals may not bring up new arguments, and should only expand upon arguments already made. The only exception to this is that rebuttals may respond to entirely new arguments brought out in the second constructive, as they havent had a chance to respond.

What a case looks like and jargon explainedOverview of jargon* Fiat: The assumption that voting aff causes the plan to happen.* Kritik: A philosophical advocacy to reject the affirmative, frequently on the basis of methodology or rhetoric, which postulates an esoteric alternative

Affirmative case

Plan text (what the aff is advocating)

Advantages: advantages are essentially contentions. It is common to have 1-2Structure of advantages:

A. Uniqueness: What is occuring now. Should usually explain why X is on the brink of collapse, or why X is doing well now

B. Links: Explain how the plan interacts with X. For example, if the uniqueness claimed X was on the brink, the plan may save X and remove it from the brink

C. Internal Link: How the effects of changing X link to the impacts. Explains what the effects of X changing are

D. Impacts: Explain the hard consequences of the plan's action, or of innaction of the plan. These should be made easy for the judge to compare. Often, debaters choose low probability, high magnitude impacts because they are easiest for the judge to weigh. It is much easier to compare a nuclear war scenario to a poverty-related-death scenario than it is to compare something that slightly increases the budget deficit to something which adds an insignificant amount of money to the economy. Impacts have 3 pillars.i. Timeframe: The advocacy that one's impacts are more crucial because they are more immediate.ii. Magnitude: One's impacts are more important because they cause more damage or prevent more damageiii. Probability: One's impacts are more probable

Negation

Disadvantages (disads): Structured identically to an advantage, but make a claim that the plan causes something negative. Uses the above template

Counterplan (CP): A test of the affirmative's methodology. Cannot be an advocacy in it of itself. Usually states something along the lines of rejecting the aff because there is an alternative method to solving for the advantages that avoids presented disads or kritisims. Should be mutually exclusive from the plan.---Permutations are an affirmative's response to an unrealistic counterplan that fails to be mutually exclusive. Says that one shouldnt prefer the CP because one could easily do both.

Debate Theory: A priori issues (evaluated before everything else) that attempt to call out an in-round abuse. A neg competitor planning to win on theory need not touch on the rest of the debate, as winning theory usually means winning the round (as it advocates a vote resulting from the violation). Alternatively, an affirmative who faces a theory argument also need not touch on the round, as the negative likely will concede the rest of the case, and that means winning theory means winning the round. Strategically, dropping all arguments for theory is wise, as one can have more space to discuss theory

Topicality (T) A. Interpretation: interprets a word or context in the resolutionsB. Violation: Explains how the affirmative has deviated from suchC. Standards: Reasons why this violation should be punished. Common standards include:i. Ground: The neg loses ground from the affirmative's interpretationii. Fairness: The unpredictable nature of the aff is unfair, and it makes debate pointlessiii. Literature: Most literature upholds our interpretation, therefore it is more reasonableiv. Education: Neg provides the most education through this interpretation D. Advocating that T is an a priori voting issue, and should be evaluated before anything

* Affirmative responses to T should include counters to all the lettered points. IE a Counter-Interpretation, (no counter-violation is needed) and counter-standards.

I'm down, but it seems a little strange to me to do a style that's supposed to be impromptu in a written format. Perhaps a google hangouts format could be done?

Awesome, I'm at CU Boulder! A google hangouts is an alternative. My way around such a problem is to have limiting time constraints, that require immediate response without much time to browse arguments endlessly.

Kritiks (K)A kritik is a neg strategy revolving on esoteric rejections. Know it is perfectly fair to content a K on the basis of fairness or education. One can easily simply explain or kritikal debate distracts from real issues and why it's unfair. A basic template is as follows

A. Framework: Why the kritisim should be allowed in debate. Often times, the framework argues that fiat is illusory, while the rhetoric used by the affirmative is indicative of a larger problem that can be solved by rejecting it solely on an esoteric notion. Alternatively, the framework may advocate the benefit to analysing methodology instead of policy or why proposing alternatives is good.

B. Links: How the topic/case/rhetoric of aff are related to the problems addressed with the K, and how the problems interact.

C. Impacts: The result of the status quo without the alternative. Still uses the timeframe-magnitude-impact structure

D. Alternative: The advocacy of the Kritisim. IE: Reject pro's rhetorical affirmation of neocolonialism policies to create a space to analyse and prevent future impacts or Reject pro to engage in ecosocialist policies and dissolve establishmentsE. Solvency: Explains how the kritisim solves the impacts, and may also claim how the kritisim solves for the impacts laid out by the affirmative.

ExamplesThese are just basic shells of what arguments could look like, these are not well warranted, and actual arguments shouldn't be this barren.

Pro

Framework: 1. Net-benefits is the best way to evaluate the round as it allows debaters to construct the round and leaves the least leeway to judge intervention

D. Impacts:1. Econ collapse(a) The US is still recovering from a recession, therefore(b) another collapse would dip the economy to unparalleled lows(c) The interdependencies of the world economy where demonstrated in the ability of the US to take down Asian markets along with it in 2007(d) Another collapse means countries become dangerously bankrupt(e) Scarcity of resources results in a try-or-die situation in which governments have an increased, desperation-incentive to first strike or attack other countries to secure resources(f) This causes millions of deaths through war

Disad 1: PoliticsA. Uniqueness:1. Democrats have high political capital2. Comprehensive Immigration Reform will pass in the status quo

B. Links:1. Plan is not supported by republicans, allowing them to rally opposition in 2014 midterms2. Plan uses Democrats political capital

C. Internal Links:1. Democrats will lose the capital needed to pass CIR if the plan passes

B. Plan Text: The USFG should pass the farm bill with the amendments proposed by the Republican house

C. Solvency:1. Solves for the impacts of advantage 12. Makes democrats look good, giving political capital, so it avoids the disad

*This CP is not easily permable. One cannot do the plan, AND do the plan except xyz. Doing so would likely be considered a violation of the rules as it substantially alters the affirmative's advocacy*An example of an easily permable CP would be one (in this case) reading "The USFG should pay to end all poverty", as there is no reason one couldnt do both, therefore the CP is not a reason to reject

TheoryPretend the resolution read "The USFG should substantially increase military aid to the Phillipines" and the plan was "Do the res by sending money to military in the region"

Neg would run something like

A. Interpretation: "Military aid means boots on the ground"

B. Violation: "The affirmative does not add boots on the ground, only sends money"

C. Standardsi. Literature: A majority of literature regarding US military aid references direct intervention, the neg only has access to suchii. Education: The affirmative limits understanding by twisting the resolution to fit something that the aff already knows, rather than learning something newiii. Predictability: The aff has a large degree of flex, and would otherwise be able to pick from literally thousands of actions. Being unable to predict which the aff would pick out of, the neg team is always disadvantaged

D. This is a priori, vote on this before anything else

and Aff's response could go something like this

A. Interpretation:(1) We meet the negative's interpretation. More funds=more money for troops=more troops(2) Counter-interpretation: "Military aid" means any form of funding or aid given for the purpose of military functions

B. Counter-standards:i. Education: This way we don't have to limit our understanding of foreign affairs solely to intervention, which is limitingii. Ground: The neg boxes the affirmative in to defend little ground, harming fairness

C. As long as aff is reasonably topical, the judge shouldnt vote on this

Resolutions: Anyone can submit resolutions. Resolutions will be assigned numbers, and a random number generator will assign a res to each round. 2 res's max will be assigned in a given round. Each match will ideally debate with one pool having a res identical to a team in the opposite pool, but different than the other pairing in their own pool.

Another note, USFG is just short for US federal government.

UPDATED SIGNUP LIST1.blarson2. ClassicRobert3. BobTurner

Resolutions submitted so far:1. President Obama should fire CIA director John Brennan2. The USFG should substantially alter its policies toward Venezuela3. The USFG should impose new sanctions on Venezuela4. The USFG should build the Keystone XL pipeline5. The USFG should nationalize energy production6. The European Union should admit Turkey into the EU7. The ICC should open an investigation against North Korea8. The Department of Defense should substantially increase efforts to use green energy and/or fuels9. The USFG should increase efforts to attract STEM workers

Whiteflame is correct. There are a few different styles of collegiate parli. British, APDA, and NPDA. British is way different from the other two. APDA is much more presentation oriented, but more rigerous than, say, PF in terms of case arguments. NPDA is speed oriented. It's more like CX, but not quiet. It has elements of CX, PF, and Extemporaneous speaking. It isnt card heavy, and STOCK issues aren't highlighted necessarily in the round, although cases seem to conform to them.